yes, you guys believe in life occuring in randomness, but how ever, the chances are to little, that it's almost impossible....and it's so fine that it's so hard to believe it out of randomness. how ever, if time were inifinite, and our universe were inifinite and is, then i can believe that this is random, BUT no!!! it's finite now~!! i mean u can't just guess and take a 5 of heart of a deck in 2 sec!! rite? i mean wut are the chances??
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How did life start?
- Thread starter Knowledge
- Start date
B
buddhafish
Guest
The 'chances' are irrelevant. The universe is quite likely infinite in age and size. Out of an infinite of chance, chaos, randomness, order can emerge. True randomness does not prevent order. Even if the 'chance' that life could arise out of chaos were nigh-innumerable, even the slightest possibility that it could happen means that, given enough time and enough space, it would happen.
That you and I are here, means that life arose here. If life hadn't arisen here, you and I wouldn't be here. Capiche?
That you and I are here, means that life arose here. If life hadn't arisen here, you and I wouldn't be here. Capiche?
Anthropic principle is a bit of a circular argument. It tells us only that life CAN arise, and has done so at least once.
The fact is, we cannot perform a statistical analysis from 1 point of data. Until we find life on another planet, or in a comet or wherever, there's no definite way to decide how likely it is to get started on its own.
The fact is, we cannot perform a statistical analysis from 1 point of data. Until we find life on another planet, or in a comet or wherever, there's no definite way to decide how likely it is to get started on its own.
I don't know but the arguement seemed to have almost arisen that the universe must be infinite for an infinite amount of time for the odds to result in life.
That simply is not the case.
1 - This arguement is used and is generally referred to as "Climbing Mount Impropable". It is the basis of creationsim and intelligent design to argue the unfavorable odds of such complex evolution to permit us to have evolved from apes, etc, etc, to include the evolution of higher froms from basic organic material.
2 - One must remember that basic life is anticipated to have evolved enmass as in chemistry of the warm pools. i.e. - Look at a stagnet pond and look at the green scum. This is what you are talking about but on a planet sized scale, including the deep water hot vents, etc. So the numbers of organic opportunities are unbelievably high. For example only: 1 E80 opportunities, to initiate the pool with several billions of years to complete the cycle. Here we are.
3 - When you play the lottery you may only have 1 in 100 million of winning but 1 person generally wins. Sometime it is several persons win. When you have high numbers of opportunities the odds of a winner come down dramatically.
4 - Even with poor odds i.e. - 1,000,000 flips of a coin being heads each time you flip, the odds of each flip are still 50/50.
Odds are not a reasonable basis to exclude the natural formation of life or higher organisims via evolution.
That simply is not the case.
1 - This arguement is used and is generally referred to as "Climbing Mount Impropable". It is the basis of creationsim and intelligent design to argue the unfavorable odds of such complex evolution to permit us to have evolved from apes, etc, etc, to include the evolution of higher froms from basic organic material.
2 - One must remember that basic life is anticipated to have evolved enmass as in chemistry of the warm pools. i.e. - Look at a stagnet pond and look at the green scum. This is what you are talking about but on a planet sized scale, including the deep water hot vents, etc. So the numbers of organic opportunities are unbelievably high. For example only: 1 E80 opportunities, to initiate the pool with several billions of years to complete the cycle. Here we are.
3 - When you play the lottery you may only have 1 in 100 million of winning but 1 person generally wins. Sometime it is several persons win. When you have high numbers of opportunities the odds of a winner come down dramatically.
4 - Even with poor odds i.e. - 1,000,000 flips of a coin being heads each time you flip, the odds of each flip are still 50/50.
Odds are not a reasonable basis to exclude the natural formation of life or higher organisims via evolution.
Last edited:
So... anything than could happen, will happen? What's the difference between probability and certainty then? Only time?buddhafish said:Even if the 'chance' that life could arise out of chaos were nigh-innumerable, even the slightest possibility that it could happen means that, given enough time and enough space, it would happen.
Does that mean the basis of evolution - that a stronger, more capable specimen is "more likely" to survive - is an unreasonable assumption? Is it simply the anthropic principle that makes it reasonable; the fact that it happened?MacM said:Odds are not a reasonable basis to exclude the natural formation of life or higher organisims via evolution.
I guess my question is: is it the same kind of evolution that gave rise to life (from death to life) than the one that is observed between species (from life to life) - and how would such an assumption be rationally supported if, as Starthane said, we have no point of reference?
Jenyar said:Does that mean the basis of evolution - that a stronger, more capable specimen is "more likely" to survive - is an unreasonable assumption? Is it simply the anthropic principle that makes it reasonable; the fact that it happened?
It takes a special bias to see it that way. Certainly survival of the fittest will enhance the evolution. It increases the odds for favorable mutation, etc.
I guess my question is: is it the same kind of evolution that gave rise to life (from death to life) than the one that is observed between species (from life to life) - and how would such an assumption be rationally supported if, as Starthane said, we have no point of reference?
I for one see no difference in going from RNA, DNA, Cells and replicating multicellular life than going from inorganic to organic material. That we have demonstrated I believe in 1954 as a mere chemical process.
I don't dispute the biology, I want to get to the reasoning behind some beliefs that are based on them. For instance:
It increases the odds for favorable mutation, etc.
So odds may only support Darwinian evolution (more favourable odds = a greater chance of survival), but not special evolution (favourable odds arising out of unfavourable odds)? Isn't that an unreasonable bias, considering a) neither have statistical support as solutions for the origin of life, and b) the rejection of special evolution is almost solely on the bias that the odds were favourable, even though in a laboratory the same conditions that form organic matter also destroys them.Odds are not a reasonable basis to exclude the natural formation of life or higher organisims via evolution.
Last edited:
I have two points to make:
One:
It has been said that the basic requirements for something to be regarded as "life" are:
nutrition,
respiration,
reproduction,
sensation and
excretion.
If we look at the flora and fauna, we see that organisms differ greatly in how they meet these requirements. They *all* meet them, yet if we compare the ways they meet them -- that can be baffling. As in: the reproduction of a whale *seems* so not alike that of a microbe. Etc.
Which leads me to
Two:
Maybe the main problem with "How did life start?" is because we think life is something very very special.
Also, when one hears "living organism", one first thinks of a cat, a dog, a tree -- not of a microbe. We are somehow destined, by our upbringing, to first see life in those more complex life forms, which makes us biased.
To a scientist, a paramecium fulfills the requirements to be called "life" the same as a dog does. There should be no bias in a scientist. And if it is known that certain molecules can replicate, and that the conditions on planets weren't always the same (and that certain conditions can induce certain changes in certain molecules, you know the story) -- then I do not know why so much marvel about the origin of life ...
One:
It has been said that the basic requirements for something to be regarded as "life" are:
nutrition,
respiration,
reproduction,
sensation and
excretion.
If we look at the flora and fauna, we see that organisms differ greatly in how they meet these requirements. They *all* meet them, yet if we compare the ways they meet them -- that can be baffling. As in: the reproduction of a whale *seems* so not alike that of a microbe. Etc.
Which leads me to
Two:
Maybe the main problem with "How did life start?" is because we think life is something very very special.
Also, when one hears "living organism", one first thinks of a cat, a dog, a tree -- not of a microbe. We are somehow destined, by our upbringing, to first see life in those more complex life forms, which makes us biased.
To a scientist, a paramecium fulfills the requirements to be called "life" the same as a dog does. There should be no bias in a scientist. And if it is known that certain molecules can replicate, and that the conditions on planets weren't always the same (and that certain conditions can induce certain changes in certain molecules, you know the story) -- then I do not know why so much marvel about the origin of life ...
RosaMagika said:I have two points to make:
One:
It has been said that the basic requirements for something to be regarded as "life" are:
nutrition,
respiration,
reproduction,
sensation and
excretion.
If we look at the flora and fauna, we see that organisms differ greatly in how they meet these requirements. They *all* meet them, yet if we compare the ways they meet them -- that can be baffling. As in: the reproduction of a whale *seems* so not alike that of a microbe. Etc.
Which leads me to
Two:
Maybe the main problem with "How did life start?" is because we think life is something very very special.
Also, when one hears "living organism", one first thinks of a cat, a dog, a tree -- not of a microbe. We are somehow destined, by our upbringing, to first see life in those more complex life forms, which makes us biased.
To a scientist, a paramecium fulfills the requirements to be called "life" the same as a dog does. There should be no bias in a scientist. And if it is known that certain molecules can replicate, and that the conditions on planets weren't always the same (and that certain conditions can induce certain changes in certain molecules, you know the story) -- then I do not know why so much marvel about the origin of life ...
Excellent. I'll not bother to add my less worthy comments.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
why look to other planets. We have life forms on this planet which exhibit traits suggesting that they arose seperatly from our commonly defined "life forms"Starthane Xyzth said:Anthropic principle is a bit of a circular argument. It tells us only that life CAN arise, and has done so at least once.
The fact is, we cannot perform a statistical analysis from 1 point of data. Until we find life on another planet, or in a comet or wherever, there's no definite way to decide how likely it is to get started on its own.
Viruses and Prions.
They both fill the requirements for "life" in most cases, but require the existance of cellular life to fullfill them. Viruses do not use DNA, but rely on RNA, a molecule which naturally self-replicates in non-acidic solution; soley because of physics. Prions (literally just protiens) rely on their very shape to pass on their sturctural information to their 'offspring'. IMO, all of that's pretty suggestive that they formed as new life from abiotic material after the formation of cellular life forms.
And subsiquently suggesting that life has formed on earth multiple times; even *after* our earliest cellular ancestors formed.
If anyone is interested in understanding randomness/chance and order, study chaos theory. there are some very good books which explain how order comes out of chaos naturally.
Last edited:
Sciforum's websites have a number of forums under the biology category that address this issue. First refer to the Miller/Urey Experiment foruim and their ewxperiments with how life possibly evolve on earth because of the right environmental conditions 4.5 billion years ago. The other theory is that life was brought to earth from outer space, like from a meteor impact.
Tree of Life Turns Out to Have Complex Roots (extract)
Biologists have long aspired to paint a genetic portrait of the ancestor by running the tree of evolution backward, going from its leaves -- the living creatures of today -- down to the point where all its branches coalesce in a single trunk. Defining the organism that existed at this point, and when and where it lived, might help toward one of biology's major goals, understanding the origin of terrestrial life.
The longstanding road map for finding the universal ancestor, however, turns out in the light of new data to have given misleading directions, and the road map's chief author, Dr. Carl Woese of the University of Illinois, is proposing a new theory about the earliest life forms.
Working back to the ancestor, an exercise based on the sequence of DNA letters in genes, resembles the way that linguists reconstruct the words of vanished mother-tongues from their living descendant languages.
Genes that perform the same role in human cells and in bacterial cells, say, may have a recognizably similar spelling of their DNA letters, reflecting the genes' descent from a common ancestor. In one such gene the human-bacterium similarity is as high as 45 percent.
Hope of reconstructing the ancestor from its inferred genes received new impetus three years ago when the first full DNA, or genome, of a bacterium was decoded. Since then, the genomes of a dozen microbes have been sequenced, including at least one from each of the three main branches of the evolutionary tree.
The three kinds of genome offered a broad basis for triangulating back to the ancestral genome. But the emerging picture is far more complicated than had been expected, and the ancestor's features remain ill-defined though not wholly elusive. "Five years ago we were very confident and arrogant in our ignorance," said Dr. Eugene Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. "Now we are starting to see the true complexity of life."
Despite the quagmire in which their present efforts have landed them, biologists have not in any way despaired of confirming the conventional thesis, that life evolved on earth from natural chemical processes. But a ferment of rethinking and regrouping is under way.
Article by Nicholas Wade. April 14, 1998.
Biologists have long aspired to paint a genetic portrait of the ancestor by running the tree of evolution backward, going from its leaves -- the living creatures of today -- down to the point where all its branches coalesce in a single trunk. Defining the organism that existed at this point, and when and where it lived, might help toward one of biology's major goals, understanding the origin of terrestrial life.
The longstanding road map for finding the universal ancestor, however, turns out in the light of new data to have given misleading directions, and the road map's chief author, Dr. Carl Woese of the University of Illinois, is proposing a new theory about the earliest life forms.
Working back to the ancestor, an exercise based on the sequence of DNA letters in genes, resembles the way that linguists reconstruct the words of vanished mother-tongues from their living descendant languages.
Genes that perform the same role in human cells and in bacterial cells, say, may have a recognizably similar spelling of their DNA letters, reflecting the genes' descent from a common ancestor. In one such gene the human-bacterium similarity is as high as 45 percent.
Hope of reconstructing the ancestor from its inferred genes received new impetus three years ago when the first full DNA, or genome, of a bacterium was decoded. Since then, the genomes of a dozen microbes have been sequenced, including at least one from each of the three main branches of the evolutionary tree.
The three kinds of genome offered a broad basis for triangulating back to the ancestral genome. But the emerging picture is far more complicated than had been expected, and the ancestor's features remain ill-defined though not wholly elusive. "Five years ago we were very confident and arrogant in our ignorance," said Dr. Eugene Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. "Now we are starting to see the true complexity of life."
Despite the quagmire in which their present efforts have landed them, biologists have not in any way despaired of confirming the conventional thesis, that life evolved on earth from natural chemical processes. But a ferment of rethinking and regrouping is under way.
Article by Nicholas Wade. April 14, 1998.
Last edited:
The Tree of Life Home Page offers two different views of the ancestor roots of tree of life and the original ancestor, working backwards from all the animal groups to try and find that original ancestor. Those two alternative views on the relationship of the major lineages are:
The "archaea tree":
,=============== Eubacteria
|
| ,== Euryarchaeota
=====| ,=Archaea=|
`==| `== Crenarchaeota-Eocytes
|
`============ Eukaryotes
The "eocyte tree":
,======== Eubacteria
|
| ,===== Euryarchaeota
=====| |
`==| ,== Crenarchaeota-Eocytes
`==|
`== Eukaryotes
"Recent Analyses Show the Eocyte Tree to be Correct
Perhaps the most satisfying support for the eocyte theory has come from sequence analyses of EF-1 genes to reconstruct the tree of life. This is paraticularly true in the last several years, as more sophisticated tree reconstruction algorithms have been developed, and as new methods have been devised to correct for the variation of evolutionary rates at different nucleotide positions within a sequence. During the 1990's, many analyses of EF-1 , as well as EF-G and 16/18S rRNAs, have supported the eocyte tree, in contrast to the situation in the late 1980's. In support of the eocyte theory, virtually every recent analysis of EF-1 sequence has supported the eocyte theory and rejected the archael theory."
http://genomics.ucla.edu/eocyte/eotree.html
The "fermenting of rethinking and regrouping" is based on:
1. Did life evolve on earth or come from outer space (meteors, asteroids)?
2. Was earth capable of producing all the necessary components (all the amino acids necessary for the proteins, tRNA necessary for coding the genetic structure of animals, and the lipid bilayer necessary for the cell's membrane enclosure)?
Experiments have produced many - but not all - of the amino acids, and many were found on the two meteors that landed on earth in 1996 (I believe it was 96).
The recent theory for cell enclosore (the lipid bilayer) is that it developed from oily "bubbles" that fermented out of the ocean as it churned and stirred back-and-forth, smashing against rocks, barriers, and the seashores. Inside these bubbles contained the basic ingredients of life.
Experiments and indepth recent into the origin of tRNA are relatively new, recent, ongoing, and a hot scientific topic.
The "archaea tree":
,=============== Eubacteria
|
| ,== Euryarchaeota
=====| ,=Archaea=|
`==| `== Crenarchaeota-Eocytes
|
`============ Eukaryotes
The "eocyte tree":
,======== Eubacteria
|
| ,===== Euryarchaeota
=====| |
`==| ,== Crenarchaeota-Eocytes
`==|
`== Eukaryotes
"Recent Analyses Show the Eocyte Tree to be Correct
Perhaps the most satisfying support for the eocyte theory has come from sequence analyses of EF-1 genes to reconstruct the tree of life. This is paraticularly true in the last several years, as more sophisticated tree reconstruction algorithms have been developed, and as new methods have been devised to correct for the variation of evolutionary rates at different nucleotide positions within a sequence. During the 1990's, many analyses of EF-1 , as well as EF-G and 16/18S rRNAs, have supported the eocyte tree, in contrast to the situation in the late 1980's. In support of the eocyte theory, virtually every recent analysis of EF-1 sequence has supported the eocyte theory and rejected the archael theory."
http://genomics.ucla.edu/eocyte/eotree.html
The "fermenting of rethinking and regrouping" is based on:
1. Did life evolve on earth or come from outer space (meteors, asteroids)?
2. Was earth capable of producing all the necessary components (all the amino acids necessary for the proteins, tRNA necessary for coding the genetic structure of animals, and the lipid bilayer necessary for the cell's membrane enclosure)?
Experiments have produced many - but not all - of the amino acids, and many were found on the two meteors that landed on earth in 1996 (I believe it was 96).
The recent theory for cell enclosore (the lipid bilayer) is that it developed from oily "bubbles" that fermented out of the ocean as it churned and stirred back-and-forth, smashing against rocks, barriers, and the seashores. Inside these bubbles contained the basic ingredients of life.
Experiments and indepth recent into the origin of tRNA are relatively new, recent, ongoing, and a hot scientific topic.
Those two copies of the trees didn't post right, but you can see them by going to:
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Life_on_Earth "Life on Earth" Origin page.
You can see the Eocyte Tree at:
http://genomics.ucla.edu/eocyte/insert.gif
I dare not try to copy and post it.
The Eocyte Tree is really interesting because what first emerges are thermophilic bacteria found in deep ocean hot spots, underwater volcanoes, or places like in the sulfur hot spring at Yellowstone National Park (aquifex and thermotoga bacteria found in geothermal heated marine sediments near underwater volcaoes - Vulcano; and methane producing bacteria). None of these require oxygen.
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Life_on_Earth "Life on Earth" Origin page.
You can see the Eocyte Tree at:
http://genomics.ucla.edu/eocyte/insert.gif
I dare not try to copy and post it.
The Eocyte Tree is really interesting because what first emerges are thermophilic bacteria found in deep ocean hot spots, underwater volcanoes, or places like in the sulfur hot spring at Yellowstone National Park (aquifex and thermotoga bacteria found in geothermal heated marine sediments near underwater volcaoes - Vulcano; and methane producing bacteria). None of these require oxygen.
devils_reject
Registered Senior Member
Life is a state, a state of something such as solid, liquid and gas. Now you never ask how the blazes we attain liquid do we. But we ask how we attained life. In truth life is a temporary state whereby a million smaller molecules are working together to sustain themselves, the entelechy of these moles is what we call amino acid and ultimately “living organism". It’s all about arrangement because remember function follows form. So how the flying saucer did we attain consciousness by mere arrangement? Well how is it that a 80lbs man can lift a 100lbs load, where did he get the 20lbs leverage from? The answer lays in the engineering of his body. How is it that a falcon can fly at 200 miles per hour and still weight a lot less than a Ferrari? It’s in the intricate engineering I think. An arrangement can be perfectly engineered to fit any purpose even "life", all you need is the right leverage. I don't even bother about God I have enough headaches pondering where he or she comes from. I think all things living including God evolved in one way or another because we have high energy and all things usually go from low to high, but I have not been to the ends of the universe so I cannot be firm with my opinion. Hell I haven't even been to the Bahamas. Anyway like someone said on this forum " the answers to the biggest lies and mysteries are usually hidden in one's very own pocket"
Last edited:
Function does not always follow form: there are a lot of rocks that have form with no function, but that's beyond this thread, although there is one theory about the origin of life that starts with the reduplication of crystals in nature. More on this if anyone asks.
All life originated from bacteria - archaebacteria to be exact (bacteria that survives in environmental extremes such as hot underwater thermal vents or sulfur hot springs). Some are methane producing bacteria, but they originated without O2.
But the question is how did these archaebacteria originate. Where did they come from? How did they originate? What is this origin of this life? Could it have happened entirely on earth, or through the help of impacts from outer space origins?
For those of you who are following this thread, an equally insightful, but more technically scientific one, is the "Miller/ Urey Experiment" thread at www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=880009
All life originated from bacteria - archaebacteria to be exact (bacteria that survives in environmental extremes such as hot underwater thermal vents or sulfur hot springs). Some are methane producing bacteria, but they originated without O2.
But the question is how did these archaebacteria originate. Where did they come from? How did they originate? What is this origin of this life? Could it have happened entirely on earth, or through the help of impacts from outer space origins?
For those of you who are following this thread, an equally insightful, but more technically scientific one, is the "Miller/ Urey Experiment" thread at www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=880009
devils_reject
Registered Senior Member
Function does not always follow form: there are a lot of rocks that have form with no function,
It’s hard to imagine an instance where function does not follow form. Can you remind me? The rock for instance I can always still throw it at an annoying donkey. Anyway like I said there is plenty of life everywhere, consciousness- a configuration of matter just requires the right "leverage". It is so hard to believe that man, an organism with two legs and arms can convey 1000 tons of loads across the vast oceans like the Atlantic, but we still do it with ships. The idea and leverage here is ships. Ordinarily I find it hard to believe we can do this, and ordinarily I ponder over consciousness.
I tried to give a simple example, but I could have just as easily used the structure of wood, mounds of soil, or sand piles. I don't see what you are trying to get at?
"Leverage" was first mathematically defined by the Greeks and Egyptians but the application of leverage was used way before that in more primitive animals like chimps: they can use a stick to pry open an ant hill or to move a log.
Life evolved way before consciousness.
"Leverage" was first mathematically defined by the Greeks and Egyptians but the application of leverage was used way before that in more primitive animals like chimps: they can use a stick to pry open an ant hill or to move a log.
Life evolved way before consciousness.